Supreme Court to Hear Case of Bakery That Refused to Bake Cake for Same Sex Marriage

[c.d.]

It's pretty clear from the comments and people's opinions on the case that there are no easy answers. It is a balancing act.

As I stated earlier, the baker doesn't come off as a horrible person to me. Misguided? Yes. Why single out same sex marriage? If he is a religious person as he claims, does he question heterosexual couples about their lifestyle before he agrees to make them a cake? Are they having sex before marriage? Does he have a list of other possible sins they might have committed that he needs to know about?

The sad thing is that you have to wonder what his views would be if the Bible were silent on homosexuality.

One thing that is certain is that there will be more of these cases.

c.d.

[Ginger]

I have yet to read the actual opinion, but bearing in mind that it was 7 to 2, a veritable blowout by SCOTUS standards, I doubt that it was decided with reference to politics.

[Ginger]

the worlds first secular democracy .

World's first would arguably have been the Roman Republic. World's oldest extant is San Marino, since AD 301.

[Robert]

Hi Ginger

The Roman Republic wasn't a democracy, e.g. slaves had no vote.

[Ginger]

Slaves aren't citizens.

[Robert]

Then according to that, after the Reich Citizenship Law which stripped Jews of their citizenship, Germany could have claimed to be a democracy?

[Pcdunn]

Pat, do we know that the baker was anti-gay? He was anti-gay marriage, but was he anti-gay?

Hi, Robert, just saw this now, due to illness.

He said gay marriages went against his religion, so I suppose he was also against gays on general principles. Many who are cite the Old Testament, about "a man should not lie with another man as with a woman", if I remember it right.

I think, really, it was part of the (Fundamentalist) " Christians are people too, and we are being discriminated against in the profession of our faith movement. " I do not think most mainstream Christian groups believe the Old Testament should outweigh the New, but maybe that is wishful thinking? There are gay Christians, too, I've met some.

Getting a ruling from the Supreme Court may seem like a victory for the Fundamentalists, but does it open the door to a blanket ruling? The news says the Court did limit it to this particular case, so perhaps not.

[Robert]

Hi Pat

I hope you are feeling better now.

What I was getting at, is that a man can be anti-gay marriage for religious reasons yet still not be anti-gay in the sense that he dislikes them.

Furthermore, I haven't read much on this case and what I have read I've mostly forgotten, but is there any reference anywhere to the man actually hating gays? I am using the word 'hate' in its proper full-blooded sense and not in the hysterical manner that liberals use.

[Pcdunn]

If every religious businessman decided to have no dealings with anyone that he or she saw as someone ‘breaking god’s law’ and therefore a sinner then there would be very few successful religious businessmen. No business with unmarried couples, or divorcees or anyone that has had an abortion. Making a specific example of a gay couple appears to show that they have a higher level of contempt for them than other types of sinners. Would anyone really feel that by baking a cake for someone you are somehow condoning certain lifestyle choices? Would any thinking religious person really believe that god might punish them for providing a cake for a gay wedding?

Very true, Herlock. But Fundamentalist Christians do hold gays in deeper contempt, as they see them as breaking God's law. (Christ didn't say anything one way or the other on the matter, for the record...) I guess the guy thought he would also be breaking his God's Law by baking the silly cake for them, and it went against his conscience.

Every businessman or woman has the right to refuse business. If it because of something that youve previously done, been abusive in the shop, stolen something, left bills unpaid then id say that that was fair play but by refusing on grounds of ‘what’ you are then i think that we are on sticky ground. How far is this from being able to say “ i refuse to serve these people because my deeply held principles tell me that black people should be segregated from white people.” Im an atheist but i understand that peoples religious beliefs are important to them. A bit of tolerance never goes amiss though in a world where we are trying to live together with all of our differences. And come on.......its a cake for christ’s sake

I agree with all your points. I am also concerned about the racism aspect, because the Old Testament also seems to say that the Children of Ham (supposedly blacks) were destined to be "hewers of wood and carriers of water" for their more respected cousins (presumably lighter-skinned children of Noah.)
Remember, following the Civil War, laws known as Jim Crow Laws were established in the United States (mostly in the South, but also elsewhere) which limited what black people, and depending on the location, those of Asian, Mexican, or Native American descent, could do in their lives. This is a horrible thing that I am ashamed my country did, but keeping people out of rail cars and swimming pools, movie cinemas, diners, housing, etc... Not far off from saying "I don't have to bake your cake because you're sinners," is it?

[Pcdunn]

No, I don't think he "hates" gays, but he made it much more personal, about wrestling with his conscience about how he would not be a good Christian if he made this cake for people he sees as sinners. (See where I'm getting with the Christianity-rights movement?)

But, the law of our state is that gay marriages are legal. We also have anti-discrimination laws in the city in which he lives (same as mine, in fact), so he was putting his conscience up against civil laws.

[Robert]

Pat, I don't know his motivations and fortunately they are none of my business. I never was one for soap operas.

[caz]

"So would you walk out if it was a gay couple wearing matching wedding rings being refused service?"

Yes probably.

"But the law of the land applies - or should."

Of course, but the question is, which laws are good ones and which ones bad?

Sadly, Robert, we can't pick and choose, unless we are prepared to face the consequences of disobeying the ones we personally consider to be bad.

But if it makes you any happier, Caz, I can say that if I were a baker I would make them a cake, because I have no animosity towards gays.

That does makes me happy, Robert.

The thing is, if people didn't judge others to begin with, based on things they can't change and are nobody else's business anyway, such as their age, colour or sexuality, we wouldn't need laws to put those wrongs right.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well Michael, I think gays should be able to discriminate against Christians if they want. You surely don't want a society where everyone has to think the same, act the same, and anyone who doesn't is subjected to an inquisition as to his motives?

Discriminating against someone because of their religion is slightly different because there's a choice involved, for all those free to make one. God made me C of E, but when I stopped believing, around the age of fifteen, I chose to let Mother Nature make me an atheist instead. We are, or should be free to laugh at one another for our personal beliefs, but if God and Mother Nature are jointly responsible for making a person gay, that's how they will stay. And if others who happen to be straight don't like it, on religious grounds or just because they are not very nice people, the law can at least step in to make them lump it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

No Caz, it's none of the law's business who likes whom, as long as it doesn't result in murder etc.

[Pcdunn]

Some links to more info on the case and the NARROW decision the SCOTUS returned:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/04/masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-supreme-court/

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/youve-heard-from-the-baker-now-hear-from-the-woman-called-out-by-the-supreme-court-in-its-ruling/73-562092956

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/22/colorado-civil-rights-commission-reauthorized-2027/

From what I can gather, the Justices who voted for the Masterpiece Bakery felt that a few phrases used by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission "exhibited hostility" towards the beliefs of the baker. They definitely limited the decision to this specific case, and it may not impact Federal or State law in the long run.